Canon EF-S 18-200 vs 17-85 as a first lens

[Mr.]

I'm to figure out what to purchase as a first lens for the Canon EOS 40D. I am leaning to either the Canon EF-S 18-200 or 17-85.

I really like the gigantic range of the 18-200, but is it worth the money? Should I instead get the 17-85, give up on the longer zoom for now, and buy a decent zoom later? How 'annoying' is it to change lenses while traveling?

[Narci]

I assume you's want a walk a all around around lens?

From what I have gathered...

If you have cash, a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.

If your on a budget, a Tamron AF 17-50mm XR F/2.8 Di II

and just for kicks since it's a cheap lens, a Canon Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

[Mr.]

If you have cash, a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.

If your on a budget, a Tamron AF 17-50mm XR F/2.8 Di II


Have you used these lenses before? Isn't the zoom range kind of small?

[hazman]

Changing a lens is that easiest thing to do, and having the extra lenses with you is not a stretch.

If you are looking for a simple kit, with a decent lens and limited change, then the 18-200 will provide that for you in a single package.
You can allows improve your glass as you grow and pick up specific gear.

I use the 17-85 on my camera and it is pretty good, I would like to step up to one of the 2.8s that were mentioned, but I will have to wait for that.

Whatever you select, just get out there and take lots of pictures, this will help you to become a better photographer and look at the images you like and identify what makes them more appealing.

Also, the comment about the 50mm 1.8, it is a great addition to any kit, they are really cheap and take solid images!

[djmr2]

if you're just starting out and do not know wut kind of lenses you need, then by all means go with the 18-200. It's a decent lens for what it is. Plus you can always sell it later to those looking for a travel lens.

don't try to buy the best limited range lenses if you're not an enthusiast. this hobby can get expensive!

[Mr.]

don't try to buy the best limited range lenses if you're not an enthusiast. this hobby can get expensive!

I've never been sure what defines 'enthusiast,' but i'd say that i'm close!?

[jamescl]

i have these both these lenses and (shameless plug i'm selling a 17-85 IS that I got with a 50D) I'd say the 17-85 is better in terms of picture quality. I'm a believer that new photographers should learn to "zoom by foot" instead of always relying on a huge zoom. I learned only on a 50mm 1.4 despite having a 24-70 L lens, 16-35 L and a 17-55 IS and I think that taught me more about composition and framing then if I had relied on a big zoom. That's just my two cents and I'm sure people will disagree.

[ah_long]

throw the 28-135 into your choices as well

[bob0]

main disadvantage of having a small range is that you may miss a shot having to change lenses. but the main advantage is that the optical quality is usually better.

if you're starting out and dont really care too much about optical quality (ie you havent used anything better) then go for it.

i personally have owned the 17-85 and it was a great walk around lens for me. i had it paired with a 70-300is... changing lenses is pretty simple. but like i was saying, it creates an opportunity to miss a shot. but for what i shoot, i dont really worry too much about that.

[Mr.]

throw the 28-135 into your choices as well

Actually I think I'm not happy enough with the wide end of this lens...If they went 18-135 i'd be sold right now.

[ah_long]

Actually I think I'm not happy enough with the wide end of this lens...If they went 18-135 i'd be sold right now.

i guess so..
but both of the lens you've mentioned are only mediocre.. not saying that the 28-135 would be a lot better, but it does have better optics than the 17-85 and it's an EF lens as opposed to an EF-S

i would look into other options such as the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the sigma equivalent..I believe Sigma and Tamron also have a 18-125 image stabilized offering

[Mr.]

How do those short range lenses fare without stabilization?

[CSAgent]

EF-S lens:

Canon 18-200 = jack of all trades, master of none. PQ is not good at all at 125mm to 200mm (read DPReview.) Wide angle end also bad as well, lots of CA. Great walk around lens, for travel abroad and long hikes where extra weight in gear is not desired.

17-55 = F2.8 w/IS. Sharp as a nail - but limited zoom. L class quality PQ, minus the build. Barely any CA @ widest angle AND when it's wide open. I use this for in-studio, events and professional shoots.

17-85 = very bad pin cushion effect at the shortest range, chromatic aberration prevalent at F4-5.6 in daylight between 17-50mm. However, stop it down to F6.3 and up to reduce the CA. Very sharp at F8 and F9 however. Great beginner lens however, w/IS. PQ better than 18-200mm.

Tammy 17-50 = lack of IS, loud as hell focusing motor (use to the silent Canon USM's). Has trouble with auto focusing. Good picture quality, comes close to the Canon 17-55, close but no cigar. Canon 17-55 still beats it. Bad CA at widest angle wide open. Stop it down to reduce it but you lose out on the F2.8 - it's a cheap man's version of a Canon 17-55mm.

EF Lens

Canon 50mm F1.8 = extremely light. sharp from F5.6 and up. Very bad CA at 1.8 in daylight, but in low light, it's excellent. Motor is a bit loud, think Mk I of Canon's USM. Great for in-studio use of head shots. On cropped bodies (in your case, the 40D) though, it's actually 80mm and not 50mm. (1.6 x 50).

[CSAgent]

How do those short range lenses fare without stabilization?

Follow this golden rule of photography:

Zoom range MUST, MUST EQUAL shutter speed or GREATER without stabilization. This applies to ALL lens out there. It's one of the basics you learn in photography class/books, etc.

E.g.

EF 70-200mm. At 200mm, shutter must be 1/200 or higher to have a sharp image. On a cropped 40D, that translates into 320mm and 1/320.

With IS, you are able to be slower at 1 to 3 stops hand held.

[Mr.]

EF-S lens:

Canon 18-200 = jack of all trades, master of none. PQ is not good at all at 125mm to 200mm (read DPReview.) Wide angle end also bad as well, lots of CA. Great walk around lens, for travel abroad and long hikes where extra weight in gear is not desired.

17-55 = F2.8 w/IS. Sharp as a nail - but limited zoom. L class quality PQ, minus the build. Barely any CA @ widest angle AND when it's wide open. I use this for in-studio, events and professional shoots.

17-85 = very bad pin cushion effect at the shortest range, chromatic aberration prevalent at F4-5.6 in daylight between 17-50mm. However, stop it down to F6.3 and up to reduce the CA. Very sharp at F8 and F9 however. Great beginner lens however, w/IS. PQ better than 18-200mm.

Tammy 17-50 = lack of IS, loud as hell focusing motor (use to the silent Canon USM's). Has trouble with auto focusing. Good picture quality, comes close to the Canon 17-55, close but no cigar. Canon 17-55 still beats it. Bad CA at widest angle wide open. Stop it down to reduce it but you lose out on the F2.8 - it's a cheap man's version of a Canon 17-55mm.

EF Lens

Canon 50mm F1.8 = extremely light. sharp from F5.6 and up. Very bad CA at 1.8 in daylight, but in low light, it's excellent. Motor is a bit loud, think Mk I of Canon's USM. Great for in-studio use of head shots. On cropped bodies (in your case, the 40D) though, it's actually 80mm and not 50mm. (1.6 x 50).

So... do you have any suggestions?

[burnt_toast]

EF-S lens:

Canon 18-200 = jack of all trades, master of none. PQ is not good at all at 125mm to 200mm (read DPReview.) Wide angle end also bad as well, lots of CA. Great walk around lens, for travel abroad and long hikes where extra weight in gear is not desired.

17-55 = F2.8 w/IS. Sharp as a nail - but limited zoom. L class quality PQ, minus the build. Barely any CA @ widest angle AND when it's wide open. I use this for in-studio, events and professional shoots.

17-85 = very bad pin cushion effect at the shortest range, chromatic aberration prevalent at F4-5.6 in daylight between 17-50mm. However, stop it down to F6.3 and up to reduce the CA. Very sharp at F8 and F9 however. Great beginner lens however, w/IS. PQ better than 18-200mm.

Tammy 17-50 = lack of IS, loud as hell focusing motor (use to the silent Canon USM's). Has trouble with auto focusing. Good picture quality, comes close to the Canon 17-55, close but no cigar. Canon 17-55 still beats it. Bad CA at widest angle wide open. Stop it down to reduce it but you lose out on the F2.8 - it's a cheap man's version of a Canon 17-55mm.

EF Lens

Canon 50mm F1.8 = extremely light. sharp from F5.6 and up. Very bad CA at 1.8 in daylight, but in low light, it's excellent. Motor is a bit loud, think Mk I of Canon's USM. Great for in-studio use of head shots. On cropped bodies (in your case, the 40D) though, it's actually 80mm and not 50mm. (1.6 x 50).

very informative, few questions:

PQ?
CA?

[ah_long]

very informative, few questions:

PQ?
CA?

picture quality
chromatic abberation

[lhsonic]

Follow this golden rule of photography:

Zoom range MUST, MUST EQUAL shutter speed or GREATER without stabilization. This applies to ALL lens out there. It's one of the basics you learn in photography class/books, etc.

E.g.

EF 70-200mm. At 200mm, shutter must be 1/200 or higher to have a sharp image. On a cropped 40D, that translates into 320mm and 1/320.

With IS, you are able to be slower at 1 to 3 stops hand held.

AFAIK, that's incorrect for EF-S lenses, since the focal length is multiplied by a factor of 1.6. So at 10mm, you need to use 1/15 instead of 1/8 if you're following that rule of thumb.

In terms of lenses, if you don't need the extra range and whatever you want to take is "foot-zoomable", you're best with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

It's supposed to be the absolute best walk-around lens you can get for APS-C cameras. IS for one.. and a very wide aperature- constant.. Good for playing around with depth of field, low-light shooting and this lens has very good picture quality. It's only a bit more than the 18-200 (although you can get this lens in a kit for much less I think, or a bundle or something..).

The 18-200 is not great, no lens that stretches that far will be good.

I have 18-55, recently upgraded to a 17-85 simply because you can get it cheap because many sell it. Reading the reviews, it's not that great of a lens. From personal experience, some pictures are tack sharp, some aren't.. The build quality however, is 10241204x better than my kit lens. The IS is dead silent, accurate and fast, the front element doesn't rotate and the focusing guide is nice.

I also have a 55-250 which is awesome for long range shooting. Sharp as well. Much better than the 18-200... only thing is that you will need to swap lenses.

and finally, I also have a 50mm f/1.8 lens. For no apparent reason.. really, it was cheap and heard it's tack sharp so it was given to me as a Christmas gift.

For you, I don't recommend any lenses over 18mm at the short end of the zoom as you need the wide angle for sure.

[CSAgent]

AFAIK, that's incorrect for EF-S lenses, since the focal length is multiplied by a factor of 1.6. So at 10mm, you need to use 1/15 instead of 1/8 if you're following that rule of thumb.



Actually, no. On an EF-S (the S stands for short or shorter) the range is in the name. So EF-S 17-55 is a 17-55mm and not 27.2mm-88mm... But tack on a EF lens and you'll have to multiply it by 1.6. EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS becomes 112mm-320mm instead on a cropped body.


CA(chromatic aberration) is that nasty purple fringe you get on edges in the photographs. Get your widest angle lens, set it to wide open, go out in daylight, take pics of buildings, trees... check on your PC, zoom in and you should see some purple. No lens is perfect, even the L class lens will get CA from time to time but in a very small amount. The more you pay, the less chance of getting imperfections in your photos. We all remember the ever famous L lens the EF 16.35mm Mk I (cost an arm and a leg back then, still commands a $700-$800 range used today) that had blurry pics in the center, hence the improvement in the the Mk II.

[burnt_toast]

picture quality
chromatic abberation

thanks

[Bao]

Sorry to jack a thread, but just a question. This may even help OP.

What about Sigma lenses? Can anyone comment on their quality? I've looked into f/2.8 17-85's lenses but have gotten mixed reviews. Is it worth the risk concerning the quality control?

I'm in the same position as OP, but looking for a more budget option..

[KorruptioN]

Sorry to jack a thread, but just a question. This may even help OP.

What about Sigma lenses? Can anyone comment on their quality? I've looked into f/2.8 17-85's lenses but have gotten mixed reviews. Is it worth the risk concerning the quality control?

I'm in the same position as OP, but looking for a more budget option..

Sigma doesn't have any 17-85/2.8 lenses... in fact, nobody from any manufacturer does. The closest one I can think of is Sigma's 17-70/2.8-4.5. My buddy has one, it's tiny, built pretty well, and very sharp. If you buy new in Canada, Gentec (http://www.gentec-intl.com/) will take care of you if you have any issues. Their service is just fantastic - you just need your proof of purchase.

I've got Tamron's 17-50/2.8 for the Sony mount. I think it's one of the best affordable walk-around zooms available.

[Mr.]

So for landscapes, architecture, and some other fun stuff here and there - the fixed aperture short range lenses (up to 55mm-ish) are generally highly recommended over the longer range, variable aperture lenses?

[lhsonic]

Sorry to jack a thread, but just a question. This may even help OP.

What about Sigma lenses? Can anyone comment on their quality? I've looked into f/2.8 17-85's lenses but have gotten mixed reviews. Is it worth the risk concerning the quality control?

I'm in the same position as OP, but looking for a more budget option..

The Sigma 18-50, see here:
http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=366_371_372&products_id=2370

Is supposed to be very good.

Generally, for even the best third-party lens, speedy and accurate focusing is sometimes a problem (FROM WHAT I'VE READ).

[lhsonic]

Actually, no. On an EF-S (the S stands for short or shorter) the range is in the name. So EF-S 17-55 is a 17-55mm and not 27.2mm-88mm... But tack on a EF lens and you'll have to multiply it by 1.6. EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS becomes 112mm-320mm instead on a cropped body.

"Canon has today announced two new digital SLR lenses and a flash with digital features. The EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS USM lens (US$600) provides an equivelant field of view of 27 - 136 mm (5x zoom), the EF-S 10 - 22 mm F3.5 - F4.5 USM lens (US$800) provides and equivelant field of view of 16 - 35 mm."

-from dpreview.com

[CSAgent]

"Canon has today announced two new digital SLR lenses and a flash with digital features. The EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS USM lens (US$600) provides an equivelant field of view of 27 - 136 mm (5x zoom), the EF-S 10 - 22 mm F3.5 - F4.5 USM lens (US$800) provides and equivelant field of view of 16 - 35 mm."

-from dpreview.com

What I'm conveying across is:

e.g. 10-22mm on a 1.6 crop body is equal to a 16-35mm on a full frame body.

However, the shutter equal focal length rule still applies, on a EF-S 10mm its 1/10th shutter even though in reality you're actually shooting at 16mm because of your smaller sensor.

Otherwise, why bother using an EF-S lens when a standard EF will do? Think about that one for a second. Why bother creating a EF-S lens when you still have to multiply the shutter by 1.6 of the focal length, it's rather redundant than wouldn't it? Totally unnecessary as only certain cameras can use EF-S lens.

[ah_long]

What I'm conveying across is:

e.g. 10-22mm on a 1.6 crop body is equal to a 16-35mm on a full frame body.

However, the shutter equal focal length rule still applies, on a EF-S 10mm its 1/10th shutter even though in reality you're actually shooting at 16mm because of your smaller sensor.

Otherwise, why bother using an EF-S lens when a standard EF will do? Think about that one for a second. Why bother creating a EF-S lens when you still have to multiply the shutter by 1.6 of the focal length, it's rather redundant than wouldn't it? Totally unnecessary as only certain cameras can use EF-S lens.

Think of it as making cookies. Your roll out two pieces of dough, one small and one large. Then you take a cookie cutter, and you cut one cookie from each piece of dough. Because it's the same cookie cutter, you get the same size cookie, despite the different dough size.

The image circle is the dough -- small dough is the APS-C lens, large dough is the full-frame lens. The cookie cutter is the APS-size sensor. The dough size doesn't change the size of the cookie cutter.

Now try using a big cookie cutter. If the cookie cutter is bigger than the small dough, and you try to use it anyway, you see that the dough isn't big enough; the edges of the cookie shape won't look write. That's the vignetting effect of the full-frame sensor on the APS-C lens image circle.

A 50mm lens is 50mm lens, no matter what you do with it. If it's a full-frame fifty, and you put it on a crop body, the sensor only occupies part of the image circle, which restricts the field of view to that you would get with (on a 1.5x crop) a 75mm lens in full-frame terms.

(Keep in mind that normal lenses on medium-format and large-format cameras are not called "50mm" lenses; they're called 70mm and 165mm (or whatever), since that's the length of the lens.

If you design a 50mm DX lens, it's still a 50mm lens, and it still provides the same field of view on a DX body. But it isn't a longer or shorter lens. Put it on a full-frame body, and while it will vignette, perhaps severely, in the corners, it will otherwise present the same scene.

It's not lens documentation that is wrong, it's lens marketing that is misleading. They're trying to make you think there's some special benefit in having a lens that only works on crop factor bodies; the only possible benefits to you are (maybe) lower cost and (maybe) more compact design.

For non-telephoto lenses, if you know where the optical center of the lens is, you can measure the distance between it and the film/sensor plane; that distance should be the same as the indicated length of the lens. For telephoto lenses, it's a little murkier, because the apparent/practical length of a telephoto is not the same as the physical length.

here you go

[ah_long]

Lenses built specifically built for APS-C cameras can be less expensive because the glass doesn't need to be as flawless. Aberration that takes place off the sensor is not going to be relevant. Lenses made for "full frame" and 35mm film cameras need to be manufactured to a higher standard in order to avoid distortion near the edge of the frame. If you mount one of the APS-C lenses on a full frame camera, if there was no vignetting, there would certainly be distortion.

Most lenses, even cheap ones, are at their sharpest near the center of the frame and at the mid-range of focal lengths and F-stops. What makes great lenses expensive is being sharp outside that mid-range and to the edge of the frame. APS-C lenses just don't need to be.

which is why the 28-135 when mounted on a cropped sensor camera would yield better image quality

[adwoodw]

The Sigma 18-50, see here:
http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=366_371_372&products_id=2370

Is supposed to be very good.

Generally, for even the best third-party lens, speedy and accurate focusing is sometimes a problem (FROM WHAT I'VE READ).


I've got a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and I really like it because of it's sharpness and its low light performance. It is alot heavier than the 18-55mm IS Canon kit lens but the trade off is the better low light performance thoughout the zoom range, a nicer blurring backgroud effect wide open and sharper images overall. It doesn't have IS but the constant f2.8 across the zoom range makes up somewhat for this shortcoming. I think it's a good alternative to the the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 since it cost less than half of what that lens goes for. I got mine a few months back for $469.99 from Henry's after price matching with Aden Camera. Focusing speed and accuracy is no worse than the Canon 18-55 kit lens.

I also have a Canon 17-85mm with IS and I am using it as my walk around lens for the moment. The zoom range is great and it focuses silently and accurately almost every time. I would have to say that the focusing system and zoom range are better on this lens as compared to the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, but the images are not as sharp unless it is stopped down at something like f8, which is usually not a problem when you are shooting outdoors.

I'm also the owner of the Sigma 18-200 with IS. It's a very versatile lens and is great when you don't want to fiddle around and miss a shot due to a lens change. Optically, it is not as good as the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, but it's wide zoom range makes up for that shortcoming. For an all around solution, this is a good lens to get. This lens likes to be used outdoors between f8 and f11 for maximum picture quality.

[oajlu]

Actually, no. On an EF-S (the S stands for short or shorter) the range is in the name. So EF-S 17-55 is a 17-55mm and not 27.2mm-88mm... But tack on a EF lens and you'll have to multiply it by 1.6. EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS becomes 112mm-320mm instead on a cropped body.

are you saying EF-s 17-55mm is actually 17-55mm on a cropped body but EF 70-200 has to be multiplied by 1.6 on aps-c?
if so, i think you are wrong.

no matter what lens you are using (EFs or EF), you have to multiply focal length by 1.6 if you put it on a aps-c camera, such as xt/xti/xs/xsi/20/30/40/50d.

[Mr.]

I got mine a few months back for $469.99 from Henry's after price matching with Aden Camera.

Henry's has a price-matching policy?

[ak-47]

is the 24-70 2.8L not wide enough for cropped body camera?

I'm tryin to decide between the 17-55 2.8 IS vs the 24-70 2.8L for my 50D

[KorruptioN]

is the 24-70 2.8L not wide enough for cropped body camera?

I'm tryin to decide between the 17-55 2.8 IS vs the 24-70 2.8L for my 50D

That's a question only you can answer - what will you be doing with this glass? Me personally, the 17-55/2.8 IS wins because it can cover a wider field of view, something I like. The 24-70/2.8L is better with future compatibility, but I don't like sacrificing so much wide-angle just for the "future". I take pictures now, not for the future.

[jackwest]

Should I go to vacation in Hawaii or Aspen?

Should I become a doctor or a lawyer?

Should I get a sedan or a minivan?

These "which lens are better" questions are useless unless you tell us ALOT of information about what you intend to do with them, who you are. Maybe more than most people are able to give.

No lens lens is going to be strictly worse than another -> more expensive, heavier, slower, worse IQ, worse zoom, than another lens.

[burnt_toast]

:arrowu:

what's with the colour? u mad?

[magical]

hrmm, surprised no one has mentioned the 24-105L F4.. although its a F4 and not a f2.8 it does have very good optics, a image stabilizer, USM focusing motor, and is light weight....

If you need that stop then go for the 24-70 but be warned it is not a lightweight lens. I have one myself and its great, I also got the 24-105 that came with my 5dm2, the 24-105 isn't perfect and has some weaknesses but its still a great lens, versatile, lightweight and image stabilized, it just isn't as fast as you might want, but you'll probably find in most situations will be perfect for you.

Plus with the amount of people buying new 5ds you should be able to get a decent deal on ebay for one.

Just my thoughts.

[magical]

Actually, no. On an EF-S (the S stands for short or shorter) the range is in the name. So EF-S 17-55 is a 17-55mm and not 27.2mm-88mm... But tack on a EF lens and you'll have to multiply it by 1.6. EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS becomes 112mm-320mm instead on a cropped body.


CA(chromatic aberration) is that nasty purple fringe you get on edges in the photographs. Get your widest angle lens, set it to wide open, go out in daylight, take pics of buildings, trees... check on your PC, zoom in and you should see some purple. No lens is perfect, even the L class lens will get CA from time to time but in a very small amount. The more you pay, the less chance of getting imperfections in your photos. We all remember the ever famous L lens the EF 16.35mm Mk I (cost an arm and a leg back then, still commands a $700-$800 range used today) that had blurry pics in the center, hence the improvement in the the Mk II.

Actually you are wrong, with EF-S lenses you still apply the multipler, its stupid but you still times it by either 1.3x or 1.6x. So a 17-55 is really a 27.2-88mm lens. Canon should have done the math, not sure why they do it this way but I think its a little less confusing.

Here is a link that will explain more:
Field of view Crop Factor (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-view-crop-factor.aspx)

[lhsonic]

Actually you are wrong, with EF-S lenses you still apply the multipler, its stupid but you still times it by either 1.3x or 1.6x. So a 17-55 is really a 27.2-88mm lens. Canon should have done the math, not sure why they do it this way but I think its a little less confusing.

Here is a link that will explain more:
Field of view Crop Factor (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-view-crop-factor.aspx)

They do it this way because it's easier for consumers believe it or not.

A EF-S 17-85 makes is sound wider when compared to a EF 24-105 lens. That's because it is...

With a EF lens on a FF body, you're getting all of the 24-105, with that same lens, you're getting what, like 38mm... on an cropped body. Whereas you can't even use EF-S lenses on a FF camera, so it's not an issue.

All i know for certain is that crop factor is a very complicated topic :(

[Matttrix2007]

Hope my understanding clarifies this crop body lens issue...

Full frame cameras are known as such because they offer the same field of view as an old 35mm film camera when using the same lens.

For a Full frame camera (or 35mm film camera) your standard walk around zoom lens is the 24-70mm, or maybe a 50mm prime lens. These lens are EF lens.

Then to make cheaper, smaller and lighter SLRs for us non-professionals there are crop body cameras, like the canon 450D and 50D. In these cameras images are multiplied by 1.6x (canon cameras only, I think its 1.5x for nikon crops). Therefore if you put the same 24-70mm lens on a crop camera, it will actual give you a range of 1.6x that being 38mm - 112mm. This does not give a wide enough field of view on a crop camera, so Canon have a range of EFS lens that generally correspond.

i.e. Its for a good reason that canon have the following lens.
18-55mm EFS on a crop body = 24-70mm EF on a full frame
18-85mm EFS on a crop body = 28-136mm EF on a full frame

Therefore while you can get a 28-135mm lens which maybe great on a full frame camera, for a walk around lens its not wide enough on a crop body, hence you'd go the 17-85mm EFS lens instead. I have a 17-85mm lens and you uses the 17mm end more than the 85mm.

The lens in millimeters is what it is, its the camera body that changes its focal length. As another example my compact point and shoot IXUS 75 camera, has a 5mm-17mm lens, because these cameras have tiny sensors and therefore 5mm-17mm on that, is like a 17-55mm on my 450D.

Note: EFS lens can't be used on full frame cameras, while EF and EFS lens can be used on crop cameras. But don't worry about that. Unless canon 5Ds become cheap soon, or you turn pro fast, the EFS lens will last you for a while.

[Asad_A203]

You guys are confusing me :confused:. Was CSAgent just saying that the rule for exposure (1/focal length) will not be multiplied by 1.6?

Korruption I know you know the answer so just explain it to us ;).

[KorruptioN]

Explain what :confused:

I use the 1/focal length rule because I can rely on the image stabilizer when things get a little hairy.

[Asad_A203]

Explain what :confused:

I use the 1/focal length rule because I can rely on the image stabilizer when things get a little hairy.

If a lens is an EF-S if you do the 1/focal length * 1.6 or just 1/focal length (i.e. 1/50 or 1/80). I am a bit confused myself though... Is that what the debate is over?